Everyone should take a moment and go read the thoughts, and more importantly, the links off of Brahm’s site. You should be sure to check out some of the comments, as that’s where there’s some of the really interesting links and commentary.

As for myself, here’s my stand: I fundamentally do not believe there is ever a justification for war. If the justification for going into Iraq is lack of disarmament, I’d argue there’s little evidence of WMDs, and a fair amount of evidence to indicate that Iraq is (reticently, albeit) complying with these demands. If the argument is to go and depose a dictator, I ask only: why start there? And where does it end? I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of world leaders that were not democratically elected outnumbers those that are. Will the US force regime change in all of these countries? If the justification is apparent threat to the US, is Iraq really the first one on the list? Wouldn’t, given September 11th, 2001, Saudi Arabia be higher? Or Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons? Or North Korea, who has demonstrated at least short-range ballistic missile capability?

Finally, what’s really disturbing about the current state of affairs is this assumption of a ‘quick, good war’, that appears to be dominant. It seems strangely reminiscent of newspaper clippings leading into WW1. While they’re vastly different in some ways, they are both turn-of-the-century wars, and more importantly, probably both wars where tactics and tools of battle have radically shifted from prior wars.